If Federer needs a better BH to be the GOAT (which I don't agree with), then Rosewall can come in under the same criticism for his serve. I don't call it a "bad" serve because at that level there's no such thing as bad strokes; but it was weaker than the majority of alltime greats' serves. Far weaker than the very best serves.

Newcombe took great advantage of Rosewall's second serve at Wimbledon in '70; and Rosewall served 11 doubles in that match. He also made some critical double-faults in the third set against Hoad in '56.

Vines dropped Rosewall down on his top 10 alltime list largely due to his serve.

Rosewall is probably the greatest of all the greats who had a non-notable serve. You could also mention HL Doherty, Bill Johnston, Cochet, Lacoste, Emerson, Connors. I have also read that the serve was the weakest part of Nusslein's game.

krosero, Rosewall's service cannot have been a weakness considering that this player has won more majors than any other player. You can't do it with a weak service.

You might be right regarding US 1956 and Wimbledon 1970 but we should consider that these two matches were played when Rosewall had a rather bad day.

Some experts have said that Rosewall improved his service after turning pro. And I guess it was again weaker when he became an oldie.

You err: While Rosewall had a decent service and supported it by his great half-volleys and volleys, Federer's backhand is really a wekness, at least against a player like Nadal. It's just to defensive...

it's a weakness against only one player, and that's Nadal, against anyone else Fed's backhand is pimp

You err: While Rosewall had a decent service and supported it by his great half-volleys and volleys, Federer's backhand is really a wekness, at least against a player like Nadal. It's just to defensive...

seriously, get rid of those tinted glasses .....

federer's BH >>>> rosewall's serve ...

federer has had matches where he's easily outclassed the best BHs he's faced in BH-BH battles :

agassi, safin, murray, djoker, nalby , wawrinka , gasquet etc ....

in an era of mostly baseline play, if one ground stroke is a weakness , there is no way that player wins more than 5 majors, let alone 17 majors ...

fed's BH is very good, rosewall's serve was average at best ...

federer's ability to "reset" points on the BH side is probably unmatched , his variety on that side is atleast in the top 5, if not the very best ...

You err: While Rosewall had a decent service and supported it by his great half-volleys and volleys, Federer's backhand is really a wekness, at least against a player like Nadal. It's just too defensive...

Rosewall's serve was less of a liability. Any player can serve poorly at times. Rosewall had a very ACCURATE serve, which he could place on a dime, and backed it up with great volleys and overheads. He always moved it around, and it was normally tough to impossible to break. Only Gonzales and Hoad could tee off on it when their return of serve was especially hot.

Rosewall's serve was less of a liability. Any player can serve poorly at times. Rosewall had a very ACCURATE serve, which he could place on a dime, and backed it up with great volleys and overheads. He always moved it around, and it was normally tough to impossible to break. Only Gonzales and Hoad could tee off on it when their return of serve was especially hot.

I reject the premise that a player cannot be a GOAT candidate if he or she has one weak or merely adequate shot.

I don't believe that we should exclude Muscles because of his serve or Fed because of his backhand. It is probably record-book results that matter most.

__________________
In the end, the aggressive all-court player always has the advantage against a power-bashing baseliner.

Rosewall's serve was less of a liability. Any player can serve poorly at times. Rosewall had a very ACCURATE serve, which he could place on a dime, and backed it up with great volleys and overheads. He always moved it around, and it was normally tough to impossible to break. Only Gonzales and Hoad could tee off on it when their return of serve was especially hot.

GOAT essentially boils down to -
Laver has the CYGS while Fed has the most slams.

But then Laver himself said that his CYGS is worth two CYGS in this era. Therefore, Federer's the GOAT.

As far as the top 10 goes,haven't made my list yet.

Pancho Gonzales has 8 years as the best player in the world, more than anybody else in the history of tennis. He faced all the best players of the time, and despite very strong opposition, he was never toppled as the world's best player before he went into his first retirement at the end of 1961.

Federer is just one of many GOAT candidates.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TMF

You're one of many people have said this for the umpteen times.

And since the GS today is worth two Laver 1969 GS, you can argue Fed's 3 slams + 1 final is just as impressive as Laver's 69 because Fed is the only player who have done it on a 3 different surfaces.

How is it worth two? There was a lot of difference between the grass-courts of Brisbane, Wimbledon and Forest Hills. Laver actually hated the Forest Hills grass.

Pancho Gonzales has 8 years as the best player in the world, more than anybody else in the history of tennis. He faced all the best players of the time, and despite very strong opposition, he was never toppled as the world's best player before he went into his first retirement at the end of 1961.

Federer is just one of many GOAT candidates.

How is it worth two? There was a lot of difference between the grass-courts of Brisbane, Wimbledon and Forest Hills. Laver actually hated the Forest Hills grass.

Of course it's not worth two Grand Slams today. By that logic the New York Mets winning the World Series in 1969 is .5 World Series. Makes absolutely no sense.

Skill sets are different nowadays and as I have written numerous times before, the question is now whether a player from a few years ago can adapt to today's racquets, it's is also a big question how a player today would adapt to tiny wood racquets and not have to rely on the current racquets and strings ability to generate heavy spin on groundies and serve.

Perhaps it's harder to adapt to wood? If that's true maybe Laver's Grand Slam is a harder feat. Can anyone say that is not true with total conviction?

GOAT essentially boils down to -
Laver has the CYGS while Fed has the most slams.

But then Laver himself said that his CYGS is worth two CYGS in this era. Therefore, Federer's the GOAT.

As far as the top 10 goes,haven't made my list yet.

There's a little more to measuring the greatness of a tennis player than merely counting up his major championships, especially players from the pre-open era. If all you're going to do is count major titles, why bother making a list. We can figure it out without you.

BTW, I haven't read where Laver said that. Can you provide a source? But, the way you wrote it, it appears that Laver is saying that Federer would have to win 2 Grand Slams today to equal his one Grand Slam.

You err: While Rosewall had a decent service and supported it by his great half-volleys and volleys, Federer's backhand is really a wekness, at least against a player like Nadal. It's just too defensive...

wow, i'd loved for Rosewall to've played against Nadal, on clay. why the cop-out, "at least against Nadal"? Is it because it's easy to find evidence of Federer's flubbed BHs against Nadal (and only on clay, of course)?

before you protest that these are just highlights, there are plenty of these for a lot of matches that Federer has played. I know I'm wasting my time with you because you come across as one of those who can never be swayed with new evidence; your opinions seem cut in stone despite many pointing out that it's illogical.